Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Washington Times Endorses New Reactor at Calvert Cliffs

While it's true that this technology brings inherent risks which must be carefully analyzed and addressed, we applaud the Calvert County Board of Commissioners for their enthusiastic support of the plan. The commissioners recognize the financial and environmental benefits of an additional reactor. Once the 1,600-megawatt, $4 billion reactor is built, an estimated 2.6 million customers could be served and the county would benefit from job growth as well as many millions of dollars in tax revenue. We hope Unistar's application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is processed in a timely manner.

The Rev. Moon is notorious for his ultra-right wing politics and he just happens to own this right wing newspaper which supports the Bush Administration's Coal Oil Nuclear (CON) job energy policy.

Again, it's no surprise that they would come out editorializing in support of new nukes. I was however surprised that the TIMES went so far as to admit the "inherent risks" of nuclear power which is more than can be said for this blog.

Another nuke just outside 50 miles from the Beltway might raise some concern even for the Reverend.

Yeah, blah blah blah. Just like NIRS is "notorious" for their left-wing politics and opposition to every energy policy the Bush Administration has proposed. So what if Moon owns the newspaper? "Pinch" runs the NYT and they are "notorious" also for their left-wing views. So is the WaPost. Maybe the Times is just providing a little "diversity" (that favorite word of lefties everywhere)?

Another nuke outside the beltway would probably be a good idea. It would provide a clean, safe, reliable energy source at relatively low cost to an area that could use it. Certainly better than a coal plant, less radioactivity released to the biosphere and zero emissions. Better than windmills, which are expensive and unreliable. Certainly better than solar, which in that area is probably a losing proposition and tremendously costly to boot. A lot better than "conservation", which doesn't provide a single watt of capacity to a growing area that will need it in the years to come.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.